1 files changed, 703 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/mysql-test/main/innodb_mysql_lock2.result b/mysql-test/main/innodb_mysql_lock2.result
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..df97b32a41c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/mysql-test/main/innodb_mysql_lock2.result
@@ -0,0 +1,703 @@
+#
+# Test how do we handle locking in various cases when
+# we read data from InnoDB tables.
+#
+# In fact by performing this test we check two things:
+# 1) That SQL-layer correctly determine type of thr_lock.c
+#    lock to be acquired/passed to InnoDB engine.
+# 2) That InnoDB engine correctly interprets this lock
+#    type and takes necessary row locks or does not
+#    take them if they are not necessary.
+#
+# This test makes sense only in REPEATABLE-READ mode as
+# in SERIALIZABLE mode all statements that read data take
+# shared lock on them to enforce its semantics.
+select @@session.tx_isolation;
+@@session.tx_isolation
+REPEATABLE-READ
+# Prepare playground by creating tables, views,
+# routines and triggers used in tests.
+connect  con1, localhost, root,,;
+connection default;
+drop table if exists t0, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5;
+drop view if exists v1, v2;
+drop procedure if exists p1;
+drop procedure if exists p2;
+drop function if exists f1;
+drop function if exists f2;
+drop function if exists f3;
+drop function if exists f4;
+drop function if exists f5;
+drop function if exists f6;
+drop function if exists f7;
+drop function if exists f8;
+drop function if exists f9;
+drop function if exists f10;
+drop function if exists f11;
+drop function if exists f12;
+drop function if exists f13;
+drop function if exists f14;
+drop function if exists f15;
+create table t1 (i int primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t1 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5);
+create table t2 (j int primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t2 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5);
+create table t3 (k int primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t3 values (1), (2), (3);
+create table t4 (l int primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t4 values (1);
+create table t5 (l int primary key) engine=innodb;
+insert into t5 values (1);
+create view v1 as select i from t1;
+create view v2 as select j from t2 where j in (select i from t1);
+create procedure p1(k int) insert into t2 values (k);
+create function f1() returns int
+begin
+declare j int;
+select i from t1 where i = 1 into j;
+return j;
+end|
+create function f2() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+select i from t1 where i = 1 into k;
+insert into t2 values (k + 5);
+return 0;
+end|
+create function f3() returns int
+begin
+return (select i from t1 where i = 3);
+end|
+create function f4() returns int
+begin
+if (select i from t1 where i = 3) then
+return 1;
+else
+return 0;
+end if;
+end|
+create function f5() returns int
+begin
+insert into t2 values ((select i from t1 where i = 1) + 5);
+return 0;
+end|
+create function f6() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+select i from v1 where i = 1 into k;
+return k;
+end|
+create function f7() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+select j from v2 where j = 1 into k;
+return k;
+end|
+create function f8() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+select i from v1 where i = 1 into k;
+insert into t2 values (k+5);
+return k;
+end|
+create function f9() returns int
+begin
+update v2 set j=j+10 where j=1;
+return 1;
+end|
+create function f10() returns int
+begin
+return f1();
+end|
+create function f11() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+set k= f1();
+insert into t2 values (k+5);
+return k;
+end|
+create function f12(p int) returns int
+begin
+insert into t2 values (p);
+return p;
+end|
+create function f13(p int) returns int
+begin
+return p;
+end|
+create procedure p2(inout p int)
+begin
+select i from t1 where i = 1 into p;
+end|
+create function f14() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+call p2(k);
+insert into t2 values (k+5);
+return k;
+end|
+create function f15() returns int
+begin
+declare k int;
+call p2(k);
+return k;
+end|
+create trigger t4_bi before insert on t4 for each row
+begin
+declare k int;
+select i from t1 where i=1 into k;
+set new.l= k+1;
+end|
+create trigger t4_bu before update on t4 for each row
+begin
+if (select i from t1 where i=1) then
+set new.l= 2;
+end if;
+end|
+create trigger t4_bd before delete on t4 for each row
+begin
+if !(select i from v1 where i=1) then
+signal sqlstate '45000';
+end if;
+end|
+create trigger t5_bi before insert on t5 for each row
+begin
+set new.l= f1()+1;
+end|
+create trigger t5_bu before update on t5 for each row
+begin
+declare j int;
+call p2(j);
+set new.l= j + 1;
+end|
+#
+# Set common variables to be used by scripts called below.
+#
+#
+# 1. Statements that read tables and do not use subqueries.
+#
+#
+# 1.1 Simple SELECT statement.
+#
+# No locks are necessary as this statement won't be written
+# to the binary log and InnoDB supports snapshots.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 1.2 Multi-UPDATE statement.
+#
+# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as this
+# statement will be written to the binary log and therefore should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t2, t1 set j= j - 1 where i = j' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 1.3 Multi-DELETE statement.
+#
+# The above is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'delete t2 from t1, t2 where i = j' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 1.4 DESCRIBE statement.
+#
+# This statement does not really read data from the
+# target table and thus does not take any lock on it.
+# We check this for completeness of coverage.
+connection default;
+Success: 'describe t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 1.5 SHOW statements.
+# 
+# The above is true for SHOW statements as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'show create table t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'show keys from t1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2. Statements which read tables through subqueries.
+#
+#
+# 2.1 CALL with a subquery.
+# 
+# A strong lock is not necessary as this statement is not
+# written to the binary log as a whole (it is written
+# statement-by-statement) and thanks to MVCC we can always get
+# versions of rows prior to the update that has locked them.
+# But in practice InnoDB does locking reads for all statements
+# other than SELECT (unless it is a READ-COMITTED mode or
+# innodb_locks_unsafe_for_binlog is ON).
+connection default;
+Success: 'call p1((select i + 5 from t1 where i = 1))' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.2 CREATE TABLE with a subquery.
+#
+# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as
+# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore
+# should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+connection default;
+Success: 'create table t0 engine=innodb select * from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+drop table t0;
+connection default;
+Success: 'create table t0 engine=innodb select j from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+drop table t0;
+#
+# 2.3 DELETE with a subquery.
+#
+# The above is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'delete from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.4 MULTI-DELETE with a subquery.
+#
+# Same is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'delete t2 from t3, t2 where k = j and j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.5 DO with a subquery.
+#
+# In theory should not take row locks as it is not logged.
+# In practice InnoDB takes shared row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'do (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.6 INSERT with a subquery.
+#
+# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as
+# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore
+# should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 select i+5 from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values ((select i+5 from t1 where i = 4))' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.7 LOAD DATA with a subquery.
+# 
+# The above is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'load data infile '../../std_data/rpl_loaddata.dat' into table t2 (@a, @b) set j= @b + (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.8 REPLACE with a subquery.
+# 
+# Same is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'replace into t2 select i+5 from t1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'replace into t2 values ((select i+5 from t1 where i = 4))' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.9 SELECT with a subquery.
+#
+# Locks are not necessary as this statement is not written
+# to the binary log and thanks to MVCC we can always get
+# versions of rows prior to the update that has locked them.
+#
+# Also serves as a test case for bug #46947 "Embedded SELECT
+# without FOR UPDATE is causing a lock".
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from t2 where j in (select i from t1)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.10 SET with a subquery.
+#
+# In theory should not require locking as it is not written
+# to the binary log. In practice InnoDB acquires shared row
+# locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.11 SHOW with a subquery.
+# 
+# Similarly to the previous case, in theory should not require locking
+# as it is not written to the binary log. In practice InnoDB
+# acquires shared row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'show tables from test where Tables_in_test = 't2' and (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'show columns from t2 where (select i from t1 where i = 1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.12 UPDATE with a subquery.
+#
+# Has to take shared locks on rows in the table being read as
+# this statement is written to the binary log and therefore
+# should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t2 set j= j-10 where j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 2.13 MULTI-UPDATE with a subquery.
+#
+# Same is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t2, t3 set j= j -10 where j=k and j in (select i from t1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 3. Statements which read tables through a view.
+#
+#
+# 3.1 SELECT statement which uses some table through a view.
+#
+# Since this statement is not written to the binary log
+# and old version of rows are accessible thanks to MVCC,
+# no locking is necessary.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from v1' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from v2' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from t2 where j in (select i from v1)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select * from t3 where k in (select j from v2)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 3.2 Statements which modify a table and use views.
+#
+# Since such statements are going to be written to the binary
+# log they need to be serialized against concurrent statements
+# and therefore should take shared row locks on data read.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t2 set j= j-10 where j in (select i from v1)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t3 set k= k-10 where k in (select j from v2)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t2, v1 set j= j-10 where j = i' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update v2 set j= j-10 where j = 3' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4. Statements which read tables through stored functions.
+#
+#
+# 4.1 SELECT/SET with a stored function which does not 
+#     modify data and uses SELECT in its turn.
+#
+# There is no need to take row locks on the table
+# being selected from in SF as the call to such function
+# won't get into the binary log.
+#
+# However in practice innodb takes strong lock on tables
+# being selected from within SF, when SF is called from
+# non SELECT statements like 'set' statement below.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f1()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f1()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.2 INSERT (or other statement which modifies data) with
+#     a stored function which does not modify data and uses
+#     SELECT.
+#
+# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data
+# it uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data
+# it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f1() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.3 SELECT/SET with a stored function which
+#     reads and modifies data.
+#
+# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log,
+# it should be serialized with concurrent statements affecting
+# the data it uses. Hence, row locks on the data read
+# should be taken.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f2()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f2()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.4. SELECT/SET with a stored function which does not
+#      modify data and reads a table through subselect
+#      in a control construct.
+#
+# Call to this function won't get to the
+# binary log and thus no locking is needed.
+#
+# However in practice innodb takes strong lock on tables
+# being selected from within SF, when SF is called from
+# non SELECT statements like 'set' statement below.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f3()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f3()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f4()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f4()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.5. INSERT (or other statement which modifies data) with
+#      a stored function which does not modify data and reads
+#      the table through a subselect in one of its control
+#      constructs.
+#
+# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting data it
+# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data
+# it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f3() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f4() + 6)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.6 SELECT/SET which uses a stored function with
+#      DML which reads a table via a subquery.
+#
+# Since call to such function is written to the binary log
+# it should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+# Hence reads should take row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f5()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f5()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.7 SELECT/SET which uses a stored function which
+#     doesn't modify data and reads tables through
+#     a view.
+#
+# Calls to such functions won't get into
+# the binary log and thus don't need row locks.
+#
+# However in practice innodb takes strong lock on tables
+# being selected from within SF, when SF is called from
+# non SELECT statements like 'set' statement below.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f6()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f6()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f7()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'set @a:= f7()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.8 INSERT which uses stored function which
+#     doesn't modify data and reads a table
+#     through a view.
+#
+# Since such statement is written to the binary log and
+# should be serialized with concurrent statements affecting
+# the data it uses. Therefore it should take row locks on
+# the rows it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t3 values (f6() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t3 values (f7() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.9 SELECT which uses a stored function which
+#     modifies data and reads tables through a view.
+#
+# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log
+# it should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+# Hence, reads should take row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f8()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f9()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.10 SELECT which uses stored function which doesn't modify
+#      data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another
+#      function.
+#
+# Calls to such functions won't get into the binary
+# log and thus don't need to acquire row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f10()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.11 INSERT which uses a stored function which doesn't modify
+#      data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another
+#      function. 
+#
+# Since such statement is written to the binary log, it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data it
+# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on data it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f10() + 5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.12 SELECT which uses a stored function which modifies
+#      data and reads a table indirectly, by calling another
+#      function. 
+#
+# Since a call to such function is written to the binary log
+# it should be serialized from concurrent statements.
+# Hence, reads should take row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f11()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.13 SELECT that reads a table through a subquery passed
+#      as a parameter to a stored function which modifies
+#      data.
+#
+# Even though a call to this function is written to the
+# binary log, values of its parameters are written as literals.
+# So there is no need to acquire row locks on rows used in 
+# the subquery.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f12((select i+10 from t1 where i=1))' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 4.14 INSERT that reads a table via a subquery passed
+#      as a parameter to a stored function which doesn't
+#      modify data.
+#
+# Since this statement is written to the binary log it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data it
+# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on the data it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f13((select i+10 from t1 where i=1)))' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 5. Statements that read tables through stored procedures.
+#
+#
+# 5.1 CALL statement which reads a table via SELECT.
+#
+# Since neither this statement nor its components are
+# written to the binary log, there is no need to take
+# row locks on the data it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'call p2(@a)' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 5.2 Function that modifies data and uses CALL, 
+#     which reads a table through SELECT.
+#
+# Since a call to such function is written to the binary
+# log, it should be serialized with concurrent statements.
+# Hence, in this case reads should take row locks on data.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f14()' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 5.3 SELECT that calls a function that doesn't modify data and
+#     uses a CALL statement that reads a table via SELECT.
+#
+# Calls to such functions won't get into the binary
+# log and thus don't need to acquire row locks.
+connection default;
+Success: 'select f15()' doesn't take row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 5.4 INSERT which calls function which doesn't modify data and
+#     uses CALL statement which reads table through SELECT.
+#
+# Since such statement is written to the binary log it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting data it
+# uses. Therefore it should take row locks on data it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t2 values (f15()+5)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 6. Statements that use triggers.
+#
+#
+# 6.1 Statement invoking a trigger that reads table via SELECT.
+#
+# Since this statement is written to the binary log it should
+# be serialized with concurrent statements affecting the data
+# it uses. Therefore, it should take row locks on the data
+# it reads.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t4 values (2)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 6.2 Statement invoking a trigger that reads table through
+#     a subquery in a control construct.
+#
+# The above is true for this statement as well.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t4 set l= 2 where l = 1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 6.3 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through
+#     a view.
+#
+# And for this statement.
+connection default;
+Success: 'delete from t4 where l = 1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 6.4 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through
+#     a stored function.
+#
+# And for this statement.
+connection default;
+Success: 'insert into t5 values (2)' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+#
+# 6.5 Statement invoking a trigger that reads a table through
+#     stored procedure.
+#
+# And for this statement.
+connection default;
+Success: 'update t5 set l= 2 where l = 1' takes shared row locks on 't1'.
+# Clean-up.
+drop function f1;
+drop function f2;
+drop function f3;
+drop function f4;
+drop function f5;
+drop function f6;
+drop function f7;
+drop function f8;
+drop function f9;
+drop function f10;
+drop function f11;
+drop function f12;
+drop function f13;
+drop function f14;
+drop function f15;
+drop view v1, v2;
+drop procedure p1;
+drop procedure p2;
+drop table t1, t2, t3, t4, t5;
+disconnect con1;
+#
+# Test for bug#51263 "Deadlock between transactional SELECT
+# and ALTER TABLE ... REBUILD PARTITION".
+#
+connect  con1,localhost,root,,test,,;
+connection default;
+drop table if exists t1, t2;
+create table t1 (i int auto_increment not null primary key) engine=innodb;
+create table t2 (i int) engine=innodb;
+insert into t1 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5);
+begin;
+# Acquire SR metadata lock on t1 and LOCK_S row-locks on its rows.
+insert into t2 select count(*) from t1;
+connection con1;
+# Sending:
+alter table t1 add column j int;
+connection default;
+# Wait until ALTER is blocked because it tries to upgrade SNW
+# metadata lock to X lock.
+# It should not be blocked during copying data to new version of
+# table as it acquires LOCK_S locks on rows of old version, which
+# are compatible with locks acquired by connection 'con1'.
+# The below statement will deadlock because it will try to acquire
+# SW lock on t1, which will conflict with ALTER's SNW lock. And
+# ALTER will be waiting for this connection to release its SR lock.
+# This deadlock should be detected by an MDL subsystem and this
+# statement should be aborted with an appropriate error.
+insert into t1 values (6);
+ERROR 40001: Deadlock found when trying to get lock; try restarting transaction
+# Unblock ALTER TABLE.
+commit;
+connection con1;
+# Reaping ALTER TABLE.
+connection default;
+#
+# Now test for scenario in which bug was reported originally.
+#
+drop tables t1, t2;
+create table t1 (i int auto_increment not null primary key) engine=innodb
+partition by hash (i) partitions 4;
+create table t2 (i int) engine=innodb;
+insert into t1 values (1), (2), (3), (4), (5);
+begin;
+# Acquire SR metadata lock on t1.
+select * from t1;
+i
+1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+connection con1;
+# Sending:
+alter table t1 rebuild partition p0;
+connection default;
+# Wait until ALTER is blocked because of active SR lock.
+# The below statement should succeed as transaction
+# has SR metadata lock on t1 and only going to read
+# rows from it.
+insert into t2 select count(*) from t1;
+# Unblock ALTER TABLE.
+commit;
+connection con1;
+# Reaping ALTER TABLE.
+connection default;
+disconnect con1;
+# Clean-up.
+drop tables t1, t2;